ncloud_databox_apply_file_export

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation's safety profile is covered. The description hints that an 'export review' gates the request, which adds useful context, but it never states whether the operation is synchronous or that it kicks off an approval workflow, nor any rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. Slightly under-informative rather than bloated, so high marks for structure but not maximal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation with no output schema and rich nested parameters, the description covers purpose, mandatory review metadata, and the dry-run escape hatch. It omits what happens after submission (review/approval, how to poll status), which an agent would want given the 'export review' gate it hints at.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (including the nested fileList fields, enum types, and the 30+ char description rule) are already documented. The description retreads the dryRun and description-length facts rather than adding format or syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with both endpoints: 'Request a file export from a Data Box NAS to an Object Storage bucket.' The direction (NAS -> bucket) plus the per-file metadata requirements make it unmistakable from the sibling ncloud_databox_apply_file_import without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives one conditional usage cue ('Use dryRun=true to preview') but offers no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like ncloud_datafence_create_file_export or the read-side ncloud_databox_list_export_requests/get_export_request. Implied context only.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.